On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Dieter Plaetinck <die...@plaetinck.be> wrote: > you also need to do various git/git-annex commands, or am I missing something?
Ideally, that would be only at set up time. > I quite like dvcs-autosync, but it indeed lacks space-efficient storage of > big files. > I would like to try if we can use git-annex to support this in dvcs-autosync, > although AFAIK git-annex is not transparent in the way regular git is > transparent (i.e. it needs to explicitly copy files between locations), I > assume this is the reason you need to go for a FUSE-based approach? or do you > just prefer this over regular fs + inotify? I don't really like FUSE, and I would actually prefer using inotify, but I think it would not be transparent enough. I think a filesystem is the right abstraction here. > you actually tried coda? it's something I'm interested in, on paper it looks > like an awesome, maybe-even-perfect open source dropbox-clone but the reality > is probably different, I never tried it so I wouldn't know. I did not try it, but I looked at the documentation. It is not purely decentralized: some machines are servers, others are clients and the roles stay the same (If I believe this page: http://www.coda.cs.cmu.edu/ljpaper/lj.html). > hmm, writing files is i/o-bound, I doubt the language will have much effect > here. > check with top/vmstat if you get iowait, if so your storage medium is getting > saturated and rewriting in C won't help. maybe a network/buffering/.. issue. I'll have a look. Actually to come to this conclusion, I used the loopback-fs provided by fusepy, which just mirrors another part of your file system, and I timed the copy of an iso. This copy was 10 times slower than on a real fs (60 seconds instead of 6). I concluded that this was due to python. I have about the same performance on my filesystem. I'll complete the experiment tomorrow with fuse_xmp, which is another fuse loopback-fs, but done in C. > in your REAMDE you suggest to use a crontab for synchronisation; maybe you > can reuse/be inspired by the xmpp system dvcs-autosync uses; it works quite > well, it's quite robust and it's instant :) Yes. I had a 'sync=xx' option, for specifying an interval time between synchronisations, but I removed it for this very reason. _______________________________________________ vcs-home mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home